Syria: Intervention Will Only Make it Worse

By Zbigniew Brzezinski, TIME Magazine

09 May 13

he Syrian conflict is a sectarian war in a volatile region whose potential to spread and directly threaten American interests would only be increased by U.S. intervention.

The struggle is between forces funded and armed by outside sponsors, notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran. Also participating are foreign religious groups not directly controlled by the sponsors, namely the Sunni Salafists and Iranian-aligned militias, not to mention intensely anti-Western al-Qaeda fighters. American involvement would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of these factions against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire.

That risk has been compounded by the recent Israeli bombing of weapons sites inside Syria. Whatever their justification, the attacks convey to some Arabs the sense that there is an external plot against them. That impression would be solidified if the U.S. were now to enter the fight, suggesting a de facto American-Israeli-Saudi alliance, which would play into the hands of the extremists.

Broader regional fighting could bring the U.S. and Iran into direct conflict, a potentially major military undertaking for the U.S. A U.S.-Iran confrontation linked to the Syrian crisis could spread the area of conflict even to Afghanistan. Russia would benefit from America’s being bogged down again in the Middle East. China would resent U.S. destabilization of the region because Beijing needs stable access to energy from the Middle East.

To minimize these potential consequences, U.S. military intervention would have to achieve a decisive outcome relatively quickly through the application of overwhelming force. That would require direct Turkish involvement, which seems unlikely given Turkey's internal difficulties, particularly its tenuous relations with its substantial Kurdish minority.

The various schemes that have been proposed for a kind of tiddlywinks intervention from around the edges of the conflict - no-fly zones, bombing Damascus and so forth - would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario. The only solution is to seek Russia’s and China’s support for U.N.-sponsored elections in which, with luck, Assad might be "persuaded" not to participate.

Syria: Intervention Is in Our Interest

By John McCain, TIME Magazine

09 May 13

he strategic and humanitarian costs of the conflict in Syria continue to rise, not just for Syrians but also for vital U.S. interests. Chemical weapons have likely been used by President Bashar Assad’s regime against civilians, and more than 70,000 people have been slaughtered. The -al-Qaeda-aligned al-Nusra Front has gained unprecedented strength on the ground. Iran and its proxy Hizballah are building a network of militias inside Syria. A staggering 5 million Syrians have been displaced from their homes. Meanwhile, cross-border spillover threatens the security and stability of our allies and partners Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon.

I know Americans are war-weary and eager to focus on our domestic and economic problems, not foreign affairs. I also know the situation in Syria is complex and there are no ideal options. But the basic choice we face is not complicated: Do the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action? The events of the past 26 months have convinced me that they do. All of the terrible consequences those against intervening predicted would happen in Syria if we intervened happened because we did not. This conflict will grind on with all of its worsening effects until the military balance of power shifts more decisively against Assad and his Iranian, Russian and Hizballah backers.

The U.S. does not have to act alone, put boots on the ground or destroy every Syrian air-defense system to make a difference. We could train and arm well-vetted Syrian opposition forces, as recommended last year by President Obama’s national-security team. We could strike Assad’s aircraft and Scud-missile launchers. We could destroy artillery and drive Assad’s forces from their posts. We could station Patriot-missile batteries just outside Syria to create safe zones across the border.

Taking these steps would save innocent lives, give the moderate opposition a better chance to succeed and eventually provide security and responsible governance in Syria after Assad. However, the longer we wait, the worse the situation gets, and the tougher it will be to confront.

For America, our interests are our values, and our values are our interests. Nearly two decades ago, I worked with Democrats and Republicans to support President Clinton as he led the U.S. to stop mass atrocities in Bosnia. The question for another President today, and for all Americans, is whether we will again answer the desperate pleas for rescue that are made uniquely to us, the USA.